Talk:Costello Enterprises
You better justify these amazing profits because a lot of those industries you have aren't big on profit margins if I remember. - Kunarian 09:01, February 10, 2012 (UTC) :Agreed. Don't monopolize like GoYou did. -- 13:13, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Its an international company. On a relative scale, the company does not make too much. Just see Microsoft, or even GoYou. Plus, Costello does not own all of the company. It explains, in part, where he gets some of his money. Because it is own the stock market, its profit is distributed publicly. I could use some help though, to bring my article down to Earth a little more. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 16:08, February 10, 2012 (UTC) : Don't worry we'll earth you :D Kunarian 16:24, February 10, 2012 (UTC) I just noticed that you started the company in March 2012, so those billions cannot exist, once again you are going over the top, ground yourself or else. You can have fun with your company on Lovia but you need to be realistic. So by the way, that means no billions in revenue, no billions in operating income, no billions in profit, no billions in total assets and no billions in total equity. Seriously Costello you are going too far this time. Kunarian 12:00, March 11, 2012 (UTC) :Well all of Costello's subsidiaries have been merged into Enterprises, plus he invested his own cash into the project as well, and the company's revenues can generate money pretty quickly in just a few months. In a nutshell, I think its safe to say that a billionaire can invest a few billion into a successful company and get the company running well in a couple of months (by now). I always appreciate your concern though. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 02:37, August 9, 2012 (UTC) Hey Costello, we need to set up your companies in the 'economy game' register, we're going to be making things a little more realistic and workable, and it's in conjunction with the NCSE. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 17:26, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Is this "economy game" going to be starting soon? I was thinking about getting my company (Veloz Group) put in to it Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 15:38, August 14, 2013 (UTC) Humility or Deletion I'm sorry but I feel that all the Costello related pages need a huge dose of humility or should be removed from the wikia. These are pages that are just made to claim that Pikapi owns more than everyone, is the best and has the most money. They are frankly over the top. I mean 4 billion revenue? Firstly this is Lovia, where the economy is only 8-12 billion in size and secondly this would suggest that a company, apparently founded in the past 10 years has managed to accrue £4.8 billion in revenue from nowhere. The various wiki pages suggest that all of the amazing achievements of CE are suddenly massively marketed worldwide within but a few years and that Costello managed to purchase a ton of start ups and small Lovian businesses (I assume with magic?) and introduce industries that Lovia lacked (again probably with magic, despite never mentioning what these industries actually were or how he managed to make 4.8 billion off of them). The same goes for any other page related to Costello, most of which only fall short of being nothing but worship pages for Costello. I suggest that the wikia either forces these pages into humility or deletes them for the good of the wikia. Do feel free to comment. KunarianTALK 17:53, June 14, 2015 (UTC) —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:56, June 14, 2015 (UTC) Though I agree, we need to bring it back a bit. I just don't know what a reasonable amount is. Also, a note to Pikapi when he sees this: please re-activate PL (and keep it continuous - no refounding or anything, Costello just returns to being leader). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:59, June 14, 2015 (UTC) (edc) I mildly agree. Pikapi has said he wants to make his pages more humble so let's see what comes of that. --Semyon 18:02, June 14, 2015 (UTC) First of all, Kunarian, on a wiki with no set rules as to what governs "immodest" articles, you have no right to mark it as needing "wikifying" to avoid being deleted—especially because the term wikifying literally only means reformatting an article in encyclopedic wiki style. Despite your accusations, I find that I have been keeping things humble. Keep in mind that the company's revenue would have been left at a whopping 38 something million dollars that I would have supposedly head earned in that same amount of time if I hadn't returned with the intent of making my articles more grounded. Not to mention that I retconned CE's involvement in literally half of the industries I previously claimed it had been involved in. Furthermore, I do explain CE's corporate plan and strategies for having achieved success in relatively high detail throughout this article, but perhaps you should have gotten the hint that anything that hasn't been clarified yet is clearly in the process of being put into the article which should be obvious because I clearly marked my own article with the "work in progress" template. You simply don't have the authority nor any basis to call for the "humility or deletion" of my articles. Thanks for being neutral Time. I hope you're convinced that I'm working on improving my articles. As per your more reasonable concerns: CE previously owned .loNET. I don't know what happened in the time I was gone, but I'd prefer we work out some backstory as to how the service was passed from CE to the public sector instead of just retconning the fact that CE owned it. Which brings me to my other concern: was there some actual law passed in my absence that justifies .loNET having been taken from CE's holdings all eminent domain-style in the first place, or did one of you, taking advantage of my absence just take it upon yourselves to take it (I know for a fact that this was the case with the usurpation of my position as Chairman of PL, and let me say, I'm very disappointed in all of you for letting this happen. But that's another complaint for another day...)? I probably won't revive PL just because I'd like to have a fresh slate, but maybe I'll incorporate its remnants into a new, more involved, and less radically libertarian party if I create one. As for the Sylvania National Laboratory—that isn't officially a thing, yet. It's more of a proposal I'm planned to announce in the future. The section for it in my article is just to outline that proposal as of now. The moral to this story is: if any of you ever have reasonable concerns about my articles, please consult me about them before taking it upon yourselves to change my content OR MARKING MY ENTIRE ARTICLES FOR DELETION. Try not to steal from me either. Thank you. --Pikapi (talk) 15:36, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :Pikapi fix your articles or go elsewhere. And if you think that 4.8 billion is humble then you're insane, even more so if you think that saying you have a small profit margin from that makes any more sense. And if you retconned yourself out of several industries then by what merit do you claim you can move from 3.8, already an unreasonable number, to 4.8 billion? none. And no matter what pathetic so called "strategies" you think you are employing, if you honestly think that a few lines of blabber can justify what is clearly ego stroking, making yourself the highest grossing Lovian (oh I'm sure that's completely just because you think it's interesting content btw) or making your company about half as big as the Lovian economy. And as for authority, right then, let's get the authority. I think you underestimate how much people dislike the actions that you've taken to try and big up yourself. But you asked for it, so you get it. KunarianTALK 16:52, June 17, 2015 (UTC) @.loNET: We decided that it didn't make sense for any corporation to have owned it in the first place, it was just something we hadn't gotten around to making a page about, unlike Ecompany, the nationalized energy company here. And didn't GoYou (which we've deleted now) own it originally? Since we're retconning it, there isn't any eminent domain thing, as it was always in the hands of the government now. @Stealing PL: You were inactive, so no one protested when Reximus adopted it. I don't see a big problem with that, but I'd be pro you becoming chairman again if you were two were both active simultaneously. @Not reviving PL: :'( —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:06, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :That makes sense. And maybe I'll just revive PL, but I have a thing against retconning lore in general unless it is absolutely necessary, so I won't try to claim that PL didn't have another chairman for a time. Thanks, Pikapi (talk) 16:21, June 17, 2015 (UTC) Community Consensus Vote in as many as you like. Only pro votes please. Also feel free to comment on how you feel things could be improved as Pikapi himself is asking for people to raise their concerns with him. Pikapi needs to make his articles more humble * - His articles read far too much like blatant praise or adoration for his character and corporation and seem to try and make Costello some god-like prodigy and his company hyper successful within less than 10 years. All of this needs to be toned down heavily, examples of this are Long Walk Memorial, Long Walk, Costello Enterprises, Christopher Costello, Costello Tower and Federal Coastal Security Bureau. Some of which are stronger examples than others. To make it clear, I don't want deletion, I want change but Pikapi hasn't been receptive to what people are saying for years. As for his companies revenues, it should be below 1 billion, and should come nowhere near 500 million in my opinion. Other people have made articles that are self-praising and those should be dealt with as well however none has quite gone as far as this. KunarianTALK 17:09, June 17, 2015 (UTC) * - I agree with Kun :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 19:09, June 17, 2015 (UTC) *... Pikapis articles are fine as they are *... *... *... Alternative * - I feel that Pikapi needs to seriously change his articles and realise that humility will make everything easier in the long run. He can still be rich, with a rich business and have all his Costello praise but he cannot be the richest, with an unreasonably rich business and be treated like a god on earth by his articles. KunarianTALK 17:09, June 17, 2015 (UTC) *... *... Discussion This seems to be necessary so as the Cape Times one seemed to be effective in getting the consensus sorted this should help as well. KunarianTALK 17:09, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :It stands to reason that every nation will naturally have a wealthiest individual, that they amassed that wealth somehow, and that they be important enough to have an article. I recognize that my articles were a bit "Gary Stu"-ey before my return, which is why I've been bringing things back down to a realm of realism on my own. As for what I'm willing to change, I'll correct anything that is outright ridiculous or contradictory, but I am not changing five years of established lore without objective reason or unless I broken any actual rules of the website. I'm not changing my character or the company because it "just doesn't sit well with you." I'm asking the community to give me constructive criticism, not to threaten to redact my content. Consensus is pointless. Pikapi (talk) 20:18, June 17, 2015 (UTC) ::So name the wealthiest person who went from nothing to kingpin in ten years? And further who says that you get to be that person? Furthermore you have not brought the information down to realism. And unless you've noticed its not five years of established lore because you never finished the article and nothing is out of the way of retcon. We're changing the Lovian Civil War to make it reasonable and realistic, don't think you're out of the way because you snuck things in five years ago and didn't deal with them when issues were raised. And its not that it "doesn't sit well with me" which I have never said, I have said that its incredibly unrealistic and arrogant to think that your character deserves to ignore wikification so you can praise him on every page and decide that he is the wealthiest. And if you really think that consensus is pointless then leave the wikia because that's how things operate concerning matters of realism. ::And if you are willing to change "anything that is outright ridiculous" then start with your corporation's revenue. KunarianTALK 20:26, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :::Oh my god. That's not even what wikification means. Once again, wikification is making an article encyclopedic. As for my fiction, it is possible to become independently wealthy fast (especially in a small nation lacking any other significant technology and biomedical companies CE filling in open industries), and there is nothing immoral about writing a character that has achieved success either. In fact, in a nation of two-hundred thousand people it is statistically probable that somebody will have the initiative and fortune to at least become a millionaire. Costello is only a millionaire. As a substantial international corporation with a foothold in many lucrative industries, CE itself has a 4 billion dollar revenue. Nothing about that is unrealistic. Perhaps I'll lower the revenue to 3 billion if that's such a major point to you. That's your only reasonable point that's about anything other than my articles not sitting well with you. And as a veteran contributor and proud Lovian who has been here longer than you have, I'm not "leaving the Wikia" either. Pikapi (talk) 20:37, June 17, 2015 (UTC) ::::Shall we talk about an encyclopedic article does and doesn't do then? I mean for me a real obvious one is that an encyclopedic article doesn't treat individuals within it as figures of praise instead they record what has happened and tend not to take generic statements about the opinion of the majority of the Lovian public (which Costello's page basically says fawn over him). And your illogical wealth cannot be justified by saying that someone can become wealthy fast, actually this is pretty much a no, especially as Lovia never lacked significant technology companies nor would there be a tremendous advantage over foreign imports for your businesses. And when did I say that it was "immoral" to write a successful character, never. I just take an issue with your desire to present your character as the MOST successful. And surprise again! I never said that people in Lovia couldn't be millionaires, especially as my various analysis's of Lovias wealth have concluded that there is a significant number of millionaires. ::::As to your "international business" point, no Pikapi, you may be completely niave but vastly successful international business does not occur in less 10 years and it does not occur in the billions. Especially if you are claiming that you have low profits and a start in Lovia that has been proven to be incorrectly assuming that your businesses take over the entire market. On your final sentence, you've been here less that I have, you barely touched the wikia. You've barely contributed beyond your self-praising articles and your attempts via your friends to gain significant power on the wikia. I've done over 6400 edits while you've done only 3548 yet you say that you're a veteran or that you've been here longer than I as some kind of justification for your ludicrous position? Showing up on the wikia one month before I did hardly is anything to gloat about. And showing up five years earlier wouldn't cut it either. I know plenty of users who have been here less than you or done less edits who are able to edit without self-praise and are able to take on criticism, even harsh criticism without trying to brush it off in an entitled manner. ::::So please, don't disregard the community or the fact that you really need to change your pages. And no 3 billion isn't reasonable, below 1 billion is getting close. Below 500 million is reasonable. KunarianTALK 21:03, June 17, 2015 (UTC) Please stop arguing, especially about edit count/seniority which means nothing. I propose: 3 (maybe as low as 2) billion revenue (which I don't think is unreasonable at all, since CE operates in more than just Lovia, and plenty of companies that seem to have similar sizes make more). Plenty of software, hardware or similar companies have gotten to way above that in ~30 years, and several in ~20 or less (e.g. Google, Amazon). I also think the vote is unnecessary and vitriolic since it's clear that we need to revise this, we just need to discuss how much. It is true that the tone of your articles seems rather praising toward the subject though, Pikapi. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:39, June 17, 2015 (UTC)